Occupational Structure and Population Change

Occupational structure and population change before
and during the British Industrial Revolution
Presentation for the launch event for the
4th edition of the Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain.
Gresham College, London, 24th September 2014
Leigh Shaw-Taylor
Email: [email protected]
Research funded by two Leverhulme Trust grants, two E.S.R.C. grants, the Isaac
Newton Trust and with additional funding from the British Academy
http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/
The Chapter
Shaw-Taylor, L., and Wrigley. E.A., 'Population change
and occupational structure;, in R. Floud, P. Johnson, J.
Humphries (eds.) Cambridge Economic History of
Modern Britain (4th edn. 2014), pp. 53-88.
Structure of the presentation
•
•
•
•
Historiographical Background
Occupational Structure of Britain 1700-1911
Population change geography and urbanisation 1600-1871
Occupational structure 1381-1911 – some more tentative
recent work
Three key publications of the second
half of the twentieth century
• Deane, P., and Cole, W.A., British economic
growth 1688-1959: Trends and structure
(1962).
• Wrigley E.A., Schofield RS., The population
history of England and Wales 1541-1871. A
reconstruction. (1981).
• N.F.R. Crafts, British economic growth during
the industrial revolution (1985).
The long-term growth of England’s population
The Industrial Revolution clearly
marked a fundamental turning
point in the carrying capacity of
the economy
Source: Hinde, A., England’s population: A history since the Domesday survey (2003)
Real wages growth and
population growth 1551-1841
Revised version of original Wrigley and
Schofield graph comparing rate of
change of population and real wage
index. PBH until 1770 then Feinstein
index
1. Pre-industrial Malthusian
relationship until c.1760.
2. Then a slow increase in real
wages until around 1850.
Annual average 1780-1850 =
0.2%
3. Rapid growth from 1850 to
1880 (not shown) of 1.4 % per
year. Adapting Kuznets we
might call this ‘modern wage
growth’
Old and new accounts of GDP per capita growth during
the British Industrial Revolution
900
D e a n e a n d C o le
G D P p e r c a ip t a 1 9 7 0 U S $
800
C r a fts
700
600
500
s lo w g r o w t h
400
300
fa s t g r o w th
200
In d u s tr ia l R e v o lu tio n 1 7 6 0 - 1 8 3 0
100
0
1700
1725
1750
1775
Year
1800
1825
1850
Baptism data from c.1,100
parish registers. Robust
estimates but, may be subject
to modest corrections from
Sebastian Keibek.
Baptismal data from all (c.11,400)
parish registers. Highly robust
estimates.
Census data
1851-1871.
Working assumptions for modelling female employment before 1851
1. The sub-sectoral sex ratios known for 1851 hold good in 1381-1817 except
where stated otherwise:
2. Assume the ratio of females to males in agriculture was 50% higher in 1770
than in 1851 and 100% higher c.1710 and at all earlier dates.
3. Assume the sex ratio in textiles was 3.0 before Kay’s flying shuttle in the
1720s
4. Assume the sex ratio in textiles was 3.5 in 1770 (after Kay’s flying shuttle
but before the mechanisation of spinning took hold.
5. Assume the mechanisation of spinning was complete by c.1817.
Note that these assumptions, whilst deriving from the secondary literature are
tentative working assumptions. They are not substitutes for solid empirical
data. But these are some years away at best. In the mean time estimates
which explicitly include women will be closer to reality than those which do not.
A very high priority for further research on the long-run development of the
economy is real data on female employment.
Plausible assumptions about female employment suggest the secondary sector’s
share of employment was astonishingly stable during the Industrial Revolution
Structural change in employment during
the Industrial Revolution now appears as
a shift in relative employment from
agriculture to services
The rise in secondary sector employment largely predates the eighteenth century
Key conclusions on occupational structure 1700-1871
• Employment in the secondary sector c.1700 was twice as large as previous
revisionism had suggested at 37% of the male labour force.
• The structural shift towards secondary sector employment during the classic
Industrial Revolution was therefore modest 37% – 46 % 1700- 1871.
• It follows that secondary sector productivity growth, and hence secondary
sector technological change was substantially larger than Crafts suggested –
though still nowhere near the rates Deane and Cole suggested.
• Most of the growth in the relative importance of the secondary sector
conventionally associated with the Industrial Revolution clearly took place
before 1700
• The major structural change in employment was a relative shift from agriculture
to the tertiary sector.
• Taken as a whole, tertiary sector growth during the period has been neglected.
Clearly, the growth of service sector employment was a fundamentally
important component of the Industrial Revolution.
• The new data on tertiary sector growth will increase growth rates somewhat
over the current Crafts and Harley figures but will not restore the Deane and
Cole picture.
English population Geography 1600-1871
London group
Industrial group
Agricultural group
Rest of England
England
1600
Percentage distribution of population
1700
1750
1801
1851
1871
12.6
14.5
53.3
19.7
100.0
15.5
14.7
49.8
20.0
100.0
21.0
31.5
28.5
19.0
100.0
15.5
17.7
46.0
20.7
100.0
16.8
22.7
40.5
20.1
100.0
19.0
29.2
33.0
18.9
100.0
Population increase (percentages)
1600-1700 1700-50 1750-1801 1801-1851 1851-71 1600-1851
London group
Industrial group
Agricultural group
Rest of England
England
54.5
27.4
16.9
27.2
25.2
13.9
36.5
5.2
17.7
13.7
58.3
87.4
28.7
41.9
46.4
123.0
152.8
60.0
84.5
96.4
38.4
34.9
8.1
25.8
25.0
519.2
723.9
153.3
292.1
309.2
• London’s relative expansion was predominantly early modern but surged forward again in
the C19th.
• The rise of the industrial counties was predominantly in the C18th and C19th but clearly
gaining ground vis a vis the more agricultural counties before 1700.
• The economy underwent a profound spatial
restructuring during the Industrial Revolution.
• In 1750 25% of the population lived in towns of
over 5,000 and there was only one town over
100,000. By 1851 the urbanisation rate had
risen to 49% and by 1901 to 75% by which time
there were 34 towns over 100,000.
• But, note that urbanisation was underway from
the mid-sixteenth century, which suggests that
occupational structure had already begun its
structural shift away from agriculture at that
date
Tentative estimates
R.M. Smith,
highly
preliminary
estimates
from 137781 poll taxes
Coroner’s
inquests, 1560s
and 1590s. N=
c.300. Data from
Steve Gunn and
Tomas Gromelski
Sample is small so
tentative only
Hard data
Slow labour-intensive
structural change.
V. Modest diversification of
secondary sector
consumption but significant
improvement in diets.
Early movement away from
Malthusian cliff after Black
Death improved labour:land
balance.
‘Rapid’ labour-intensive
structural shift from
agriculture to the
secondary sector Industrialisation.
Increased
consumption of
secondary
sector goods
primarily by
middling sort
Structural change largely
from agriculture to the
tertiary sector.
Technologically intensive
Increases in output per
head in the secondary
sector – Industrial
Revolution.
Interpolated
data point
for 1770
Escape from
Malthusian constraints
Incomes of all classes
probably rose. Definitely
so from the mid C19th
The male occupational Structure of England and Wales c.1381 – 2011
Tentative estimates
With
Withthe
theanomalous
exception of
exception
the
the C20thofinterwar
inter-war
period
the
period, the
tertiary
tertiary
sector sector’s
has beenshare
ofgrowing
employment
has of
as a share
been
growing since
employment
since 1700
1700
probably
a
and and
probably
longer
good deal longer
that.
Hard data
Our chapter is based on the work of many people over the last eleven years:
Occupational coding: E.A. Wrigley and R.S. Davies
Population data: E.A. Wrigley. Research assistance: S. Bottomley
Historical Cartography and GIS resource creation: A.E.M. Satchell.
Database construction: P.M. Kitson and G. Newton
Management of early register data collection: J. Field
Data collection for early registers: O. Dunn, J. Field and P.M. Kitson
Management of 1813-20 data collection: P.M. Kitson.
Collection of 1813-20 data: J. Barker, R. Churchley, O. Dunn, S. Hennesey, P.M. Kitson , N. Modha,
L. Monaghan-Pisano, G. Stanning, T. Swain, A. Warren, L. Ward, M. Ward, M. Westlake.
Input of published census material: R. Tyler and E. Potter.
Spatial matching of datasets: J. Day, P.M. Kitson, G. Newton, A.E.M. Satchell, E.A. Wrigley.
Research assistance from: S. Basten, S. Bottomley, Z. Crisp, G. Wade, S. Thompson, D. Walsh and
R.M. Whyte.
GIS mapping: A.E.M. Satchell and J. Field.
1381 Poll tax estimates: R.M. Smith. Data from Steve Broadberry.
Coroners’ inquest data 1560s and 1590s. Data from Steven Gunn and Tomas Gromelski.
Other research assistance: Ellen Potter, Mischa Davenport and Annette MacKenzie.
Errors: Leigh Shaw-Taylor